The court established that disciplinary action must be justified by the misconduct of the individual and should not be initiated without competent jurisdiction.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed by calling the record of case and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

(a) The Record of the case may be called for;

(b) The penalty/Punishment Order dated 18.06.2018 (Annex.17) may be quashed and set aside;

(c) The orders passed by appellate authority dated 13.06.2019 (Anex.18) may be quashed and set aside;

(d) The all consequential benefits of the service may be awarded in favour of the petitioner.

(e) Cost of litigation and damages may also be allowed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel of the petitioner, are that the petitioner was appointed as Junior Engineer (Mechanical) on 05.01.1990, whereafter, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Assistant Engineer (Mechanical) on 31.08.2010 and posted at Field Mechanical Division-II, IGNP, Bikaner. Prior thereto, in the year 1999, an agreement was executed between the respondent-department and a contractor for certain works and the work order was issued in favour of the contractor on 29.10.1999.

2.1. While the petitioner was posted at the site of the work on 31.08.2010, he inspected the installed machines and found that the said machines were not in a working condition, and the said issue was reported by the petitioner to the Superintending Engineer concerned, whereupon the said authority directed the petitioner not to release any payment in favour of the contractor owing to such non-satisfactory performance on the part of the contractor; the said decision of the Superintending Engineer was affirmed by the Chief Engineer concerned vide its communication dated 03.01.2012. Thus, after completion of the work, the payment towards the same was not released in favour of the contractor.

2.2. Thereafter, the Empowered Standing Committee was constituted as per the aforesaid agreement. The said Committee vide order dated 19.07.2013 ordered release of the necessary payment to the contractor, while holding that the concerned Chief Engineer and other officers were liable for non-disbursement of payment to the contractor, and subsequently, directed to initiate an enquiry against the said officers.

2.3. Thereafter, the respondent-authority issued a show cause notice dated 12.08.2013 to the petitioner to defend as to why payment was not released and the department had to face proceedings before the Tribunal/adjudicating authority. The petitioner filed detailed representations on 21.09.2013 & 19.11.2013.

2.4. The respondents issued a charge-sheet under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Classification, Control, Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred as Rules of 1958) against the petitioner and other persons; the petitioner submitted the reply of the said charge sheet.

2.5. Thereafter, the disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner was undertaken and penalty of censure was imposed on the petitioner and other person, namely, Rajesh Verma vide the impugned order dated 18.06.2018. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred appeal/revision under Rule 33 of the Rules of 1958 against the order dated 18.06.2018 before the Hon’ble Governor, but the same was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 13.06.2019. Thus, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the inquiry was initiated on the direction passed by the Empowered Standing Committee under Clause 23 of the Agreement, but the said Committee was not having competent jurisdiction to direct initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that after joining on the post in question, the petitioner inspected the site in question and found that it was non-functional and immediately reported the matter to the Superintending Engineer concerned, where